The Swamp Got Murkier?

The New Hampshire Primary does not have a precision-riddled history. In fact, the New Hampshire results consistently do very little for predicting the ultimate winner of the two parties' nominations. Though the 'First in the Nation' primary has a bet of a better track record than the Iowa Caucus, this just isn't the pressure gauge to make any sort of long-term judgement by.

If you look at each party's primary dating back to 1980 (excluding unopposed runs), the Granite State primary has only had a 9/14 accuracy, that's a 64% accuracy rate. Arguably though, since 2000, the New Hampshire primary has been much more accurate than since 1980, but all trends rely on history and many, many data points. That being said, I'm not putting much stock into what the primaries tonight mean for either party.

So, you ask, what do the primaries do? What's the point then?

Politically speaking, there are significant primary and secondary order effects, potentially much more so for the GOP than the Democratic field. With regard to Republicans, there are two factors that come into play when the results are finalized: momentum and the culling of the herd. Momentum was all of the post-Iowa talk. We heard about the bull market on Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz and the bear market on Donald Trump and the three establishment candidates.

Obviously, this market trends in all directions at all times as we saw with Marco Rubio's stifled #Marcomentum post-Saturday's debate and John Kasich's seemingly steady climb toward the top of the second tier when he was never awarded a single delegate in Iowa. As we scream (or crawl) closer to the respective conventions, the next wave of momentum for the insurgents and the establishment will be key for anyone's long term viability.

On that matter of long-term viability, the New Hampshire primary also has the historical effect of culling the herd....historically. 2016 may very well be an exception with all 11 candidates that entered tonight (yes, even Gilmore) on the road to South Carolina. That aside, textbooks tell us that the field ought to be whittled down by a candidate or two, which means that you have brand new, undeclared voters that are just looking for a new home. This type of open capital puts candidates into a free-for-all to vie for the affections of these newly available supporters. Depending on who drops out (Fiorina? Christie? Carson?) that opens up a lot of people that swing the balance of the primary in a major way.

On the Democratic side, there's obviously going to be no culling of any herd. You have two candidates, and you're going to have two candidates until the winning delegates total is reached by one of them. Again, this comes back to the momentum argument. By all accounts (pre-results), Sanders ought to win the primary, but now this is where the expectations game comes into play.

There is a chance that Bernie Sanders blows his shot at the nomination tonight even if he wins. Expectations going back to just last week had the Vermont Senator sitting at a comfortable, victory formation distance. In the last week, polls show that Hillary is closing that gap. Now again, probably not enough to win, but she sets herself up very well going forward if the loss is in the low to mid single digits. She beat expectations and completed an effort to make her the second Clinton 'Comeback Kid'.

On the other hand, New Hampshire feels the Bern, we have a long race ahead of us, America.

There's a good chance that tonight's election does us no favors, but isn't that the fun of watching all of this? Politics itself is not a spectator sport, but being a spectator at this juncture is all the rage to me.

Digging the Political Grave

Senator Ted Cruz ran a masterfully tactical campaign in the closing days leading up to the Iowa Caucus. In fact, he ran a great campaign literally hours leading up to the casting of the first votes. An APN tweet from last week noted that Senator Rubio acts like he wants the Presidency the most, but Cruz is truly the one playing the game the best at this point.

Ground game, fundraising machine, and Iowa Caucus momentum aside, Cruz is on a different level than the rest of the candidates right now in the GOP field. Mr. Trump can bring the crowds and Governor Bush can lean on Right to Rise Super PAC, but their failures lie in their reliance on words. Cruz's multidimensional game includes actions that potentially no other candidate is readily conversant in so far.

However, Cruz's recent actions are tactically brilliant yet strategically short-sighted.

Since becoming very competitive with Mr. Trump in the weeks prior to the Iowa Caucus spanning into the hours before the initial voting, Cruz's "leak" about the Carson campaign suspension as well as 'Voter Violation' incident has sprung the campaign into a new light. Many of Cruz's competitors are attacking the campaign for dishonest, and Mr. Trump is going as far as calling for a nullification of the results of the Iowa Caucus and have a re-vote. That being said, the Cruz campaign has not done anything illegal and any movement to alter the results now ought to be out of the question.

Cruz is doing what it takes to win and doing it more than anyone else arguably on either side of the aisle. Even more than that, he knows it. Cruz was quoted by CNN as saying "I will apologize to no one for using every tool we can to encourage Iowa voters to come out and vote". The merits of the tactics aside, it is indisputable thus far that they have achieved results. That is the tactically brilliant portion of the argument.

There is an error to these ways though. These tactics largely rely on one thing to absolve the memory of their employment: momentum. In sports, they say that winning cures all ills. Much like in sports, the same applies in the political realm. A candidate can always brush away things he/she did or said when it results in a democratically elected win. At that point, the victories begin to mount and the momentum sweeps prior transgressions under the rug. That's it. That's the nature of this beast, compounded by the nature of a 24-hour news cycle.

But here's the hiccup in the philosophy. Hell hath no fury like a political candidate's supporters scorned. Similar to the hardened supporters of Mr. Trump, Cruz's allegiant supporters will not waiver despite the mounting allegations against the campaign. So, there's always a base for Senator Cruz to rely on. However, as candidates begin dropping out of the race, they remember their wronged candidate. That wronged candidate that was a manifestation of their own hopes and dreams for the country. An attack on their candidate is an inherent attack on them.

So, where do they go? The easy answer is not to Senator Cruz. Realistically, that support gets thrown to whoever is the antithesis to Cruz and who has the ability to defeat him. At this moment, that could very well be Senator Rubio. This is a worst-case scenario for the Cruz's campaign, as the surging Rubio, especially with a possible strong showing in New Hampshire under his belt, beginning to have support coalesce around him from all factions of the Republican party. The establishment is already anti-Cruz, but the supporters of the remaining candidates may also soon have reason to as well.

As the negative attention builds on Cruz's tactics (presuming there is more to follow), generally and newly uncommitted voters weigh two factors heavily as the primary tempo increases: electability and likability. With everything mentioned prior to this statement, the aggregate effect of these tactics, in addition to the media's likely demonization of Cruz will lead voters to feel positively about either that electability or likability, which spells trouble for the currently hot Cruz campaign.

The Iowa hurdle has sense been cleared, and now it's time for the Cruz camp to take a step back and take the long view in order to survive long-term. Relying purely on momentum may not be enough and, even worse, may be naive with just one very close victory in one primary thus far. From the outside looking in, Senator Cruz is in the act of digging a political grave for himself. Everything is still so early and not so far along that the ship cannot be righted, but the true conundrum is the following question. Does an overall strategy shift and denial of the tactics that have gotten him to this point take away from the appeal he has with his base and put a strangle on his ability to operate in the ways he has used to propel him toward the front?

On a Positive Note

Dating back to the Ronald Reagan's first term, the winning candidate has touted the positive messages. Though the campaigns might be run in a negative fashion, the core messages are still ones that are intended to inspire and cause people to believe in their country. Going backwards in time:

• Barack Obama 2012: Forward
• Barack Obama 2008: Change We Can Believe In
• George W. Bush 2004: Yes, America Can
• George W. Bush 2000: Compassionate Conservatism
• Bill Clinton 1996: Building a Bridge to the 21st Century
• Bill Clinton 1992: Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow
• George H.W. Bush 1988: Kinder, Gentler Nation
• Ronald Reagan 1984: It's Morning Again in America

Ronald Reagan's campaign slogan for 1980 stopped the trend, which was 'Are you better off than you
were four years ago?'. The question itself is an inherent attack vice a genuinely positive message, though the tone of the country and the political establishment was much different at that time. Fast forward to today, we're looking at a potentially different tone.

Over the last 32 years, the most positive message has typically won out, even as the nature of campaigns have been drowned in relentless negativity. Even as many campaigns have been run negatively, often through advertising and personal attacks, the candidate that most energetically pushed positive tones came away with the election victory. Former Presidents Reagan, Clinton, George W. Bush, and Current President Barack Obama were all noted as not only having significant energy, but they applied it to an overall positive message.

Let's take a look at the current front runners as of the Iowa Caucus polling:

• Bernie Sanders: A Future to Believe In
• Hillary Clinton: Fighting For Us
• Donald Trump: Making America Great Again
• Ted Cruz: Reigniting the Promise of America
• Marco Rubio: A New American Century

While there are certainly other candidates that are promoting a positive tone, these five candidates are arguably the five most energetic candidates pushing this message to the electorate. That means something to many people. With as much disdain as the American people commonly have for the government and for whatever administration is in the Oval Office, a rejuvenating positive message is refreshing for many and provides hope for something new, more, and better going forward.

The nature of campaigns, specifically for some of these candidates, often take a very negative overture. Ultimately, as we know in American society, branding matters. The way these candidates brand themselves as the choice candidate for elevating the American people and moving us forward to a new level is what ultimately resonate. We choose to accept the good that people often times over the bad that they do. As such, we come to accept the people who exclaim their positive overtures.

It really should be no shock that these five candidates are at the top of their party going into the Iowa Caucus and will continue to sit at the top of their party's respective polls throughout most of the rest of the race. When this all raps up in November, I still believe that, regardless of the anomalous season so far, the most positive message and messenger will again prove victorious and will be sworn in one year from now. 

Is America's Glass Ceiling Shatter-Proof?

In the lead-up to the GOP Debate on Thursday, a thought that I had buried away months ago aggressively returned as the attacks surged against Megyn Kelly. While I make no claim of support on her feud with GOP candidate Donald Trump, it is certainly difficult to ignore the enormous tidal wave of negativity that was predominately thrown her way. What ought to be even more difficult to ignore is the type of negativity she encountered. Regardless of where one leans on the issue that caused Mr. Trump to skip the debate on Thursday, it certainly feels more than fair to say that many have lost (or perhaps never had) the ability to maintain civility.

You can find the evidence on any social media or news outlet comments section. Pardon my language, but we read that Megyn Kelly was a 'bitch', 'slut', and 'whore', and those were some of the more tame comments in some cases.

What necessitated that type of response? Perhaps the explanation is as simple as this was a case of a small portion of Donald Trump's supporters going to bat for him (though way above and beyond the necessary means). I don't think we can be so sure that that's the sole explanation here though. I would submit to you that there is still an inherent double-standard that exists is enough places in our society.

What do I mean by enough? Translating it to the current primary election season, it is simply that the double-standard exists in enough places that it stymies momentum or even could outright block a candidate from receiving their party's nomination.

Taking a look at this election cycle, as well as the 2012 election season, Hillary Clinton, Carly
Fiorina, and Michelle Bachmann all hit or are hitting up against a glass ceiling.

I think it's fair to say that all three of these women's leadership styles all include an element of brusqueness. Additionally, I think it's fair to say that all three women are very passionate about their core issues and about the business of trying to lead America. As a result, that brusqueness comes out during policy speeches, town halls, debates, and rallies.

Enter the double-standard. My observations show a remarkably different take that we have with men still. If a man does not illustrate a certain level of sternness, he is deemed weak and therefore unworthy of the office of President. Mr. Trump's appeal, as well as the appeal of so many other men in both parties across many years of political races is based on a perception of strength.

It does not take long to find a 'Comments' section or a tweet that has something to the effect of 'Wow, she's being a real [insert flowery expletive here].'. Yet, if a male candidate took the opposing posture, we would be saying 'Jeb Bush just looks so soft'. Well, the truth is that many do say that. If Mrs. Fiorina, Secretary Clinton, or Mrs. Bachmann took a much softer stance, then they would simply go unnoticed and would be largely patronized by their competitors and the media throughout the election.

Going back to 2012, Mrs. Bachmann certainly was known to take very firm stances on a common conservative issues. Her more aggressive posture was also capitalized by being at the forefront of the rising Tea Party Movement. Let's not forget the Newsweek magazine front cover, which labelled Mrs. Bachmann as the 'Queen of Rage' and posted a non-flattering photo across the entire page. It certainly disrupt the campaign, since it came so early in the campaign, but it was arguably a contributing tone-setter to the electorate's perceptions of the congresswoman from Minnesota.

Even when these candidates are not speaking at the podium, they are often being judged by their looks. It's insane to have read that the posture of these candidates can be categorized as 'RBF', but it's just Mr. Trump or Senator Cruz relaxing in between questions.

For all of the progress that we have made, America just is not there yet and the cultural swing in that direction might not be complete by November. I remember Senator Bernie Sanders saying this during a town hall recently, and I am still surprised this did not make more headlines. He was asked if he felt that America has made more progress in gender or racial equality.He actually responded that we have made greater strides in racial equality, which might be abundantly surprising to some still in the wake of Freddie Gray and Ferguson. Still, Senator Sanders might be on to something here. After all, as he cited, 'we elected an African-American to the White House', but we still have yet to take the next step to push for a woman.

This all being said, proportionally men dominate the political scene and therefore there is a greater statistical likelihood of a male-dominated field and a man consistently getting these opportunities. That is still an issue that needs to be examined and figured out, but, then again, maybe the right woman has yet to enter the scene. Ultimately, we should not elect a woman just for the sake of achieving a milestone, but I would like to see a woman in the White House and see her continue to put our country in a position to thrive.

So, does it not better suit these candidates to take the risk of coming off as brusque and giving it all they can in this race?

Unfortunately, it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't 'Catch 22' type of situation.

Maybe Mr. Trump Is On To Something

GOP Presidential candidate Mr. Donald Trump shook the news and the GOP field by opting out of the final GOP debate leading up to the Iowa Caucus. However, where some see plausible weakness, one could argue Mr. Trumps move is both calculating and self-preserving. At the heart of the issue, this could be an exhibition of a true power move by the Republican candidate.

From a certain angle, one could argue the following (and more) about Mr. Trump's power move of his very obvious and voluntary absence:

• While we can expect a fair amount of jabs thrown his way during the debate over his absence, the candidates would be losing numerous opportunities to make up ground on each other by focusing on the only person that's missing from the fray. The comparatively minimal jabs outweighs the potential devastating body blows of losing a costly exchange to a competitor on a topic that's of particular interest to the Iowan electorate. In his absence the rest of the field will be left to debate each other possibly leading to a growing parity in the middle-tier while Mr. Trump maintains his dedicated voter base.


• Mr. Trump has proven time and time again that his soundbites and actions do not have a tangibly negative impact on his standing in the polls. What would cripple a middle-tier candidate like Governor Bush or Governor Kasich bounces off of the impenetrable iron armor that Mr. Trump has created for himself. Perhaps a bit simpleton of an approach, but how would this action lead us to a new end-state? Expect Mr. Trump to hold on to his low 30s in polling both in Iowa and nationwide. 


• Getting more to the heart of this, is this not an exhibition of one the qualities that has drawn so many people toward this candidate? Mr. Trump's base finds his unapologetic trail-blazing to be quite magnetic. He has consistently pitted himself in an adversarial relationship with the press and this is the display of force that brings the entire struggle to a head. Moreover, the only other institution disdained more than the media is Congress, and Mr. Trump is taking a firm stand against both the Beltway business model and the media networks during his campaign. This might earn him a bit more than the rest might be willing to concede as of 28 January.

Meanwhile, the greatest likelihood here is that Senator Marco Rubio becomes the top target of the rest of the field on the main stage with Senator Cruz looking to separate himself further and the rest of the candidates attempting to win the 'Establishment Blessing' seeking ways to discredit Senator Rubio's record and experience. Iowa historically decides late, but, outside of some last minute jockeying, the major trends of the last several weeks look to prevail on 01 February.

Fascinating times are plentiful in both races and APN plans on keeping up with takes on it. APN will also be tweeting throughout the debate. Be sure to check in!